[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130320201833.GA26387@merkur.ravnborg.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 21:18:33 +0100
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm, nobootmem: fix wrong usage of max_low_pfn
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 05:07:21PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:35:45AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > Can you check why sparc do not need to change interface during converting
> > to use memblock to replace bootmem?
>
> Sure.
> According to my understanding to sparc32 code(arch/sparc/mm/init_32.c),
> they already use max_low_pfn as the maximum PFN value,
> not as the number of pages.
I assume you already know...
sparc64 uses memblock, but sparc32 does not.
I looked at using memblock for sparc32 some time ago but got
distracted by other stuff.
I recall from back then that these ackward named variables confused me,
and some of my confusion was likely rooted in sparc32 using
max_low_pfn for something elase than others do.
I have no plans to look into adding memblock support for sparc32
right now. But may eventually do so when I get some spare time.
Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists